Here are the 'basics' that I'd like to have in the 5dmIII;* at least 25MP* pro-AF which focusses rapidly, locks on* dual digic V* higher/better video capacities* the fps I dont really cant about, though about 5fps would be good* 1Dx's ISO or something similar to it

Here are the 'basics' that I'd like to have you're likely to get in the 5dmIII;* at least 25MP 18 MP (but maybe more if they decide not to reuse the 1D X sensor)* pro-AF which focusses rapidly, locks on* dual digic V* higher/better video capacities* the fps I dont really cant about, though about 5fps 4 fps would be good* 1Dx's ISO or something similar to it

I doubt Canon would fit a 7D inferior AF system in 5DmkIII. It seems unlikely.

Flash back. It's early 2008, the 40D with its 9 cross-type AF has been out for some time and everyone in the Interverse believes a 5D successor is coming soon. Most people are sure the 5DII will a better AF system, since it seemed quite 'unlikely' that Canon would fit a 40D-inferior AF into their new 5-series body.

I had no idea this was the case. Thanks for illuminating this. Still this is not a real drawback for me, since AF does not matter much for me.

I doubt Canon would fit a 7D inferior AF system in 5DmkIII. It seems unlikely.

Flash back. It's early 2008, the 40D with its 9 cross-type AF has been out for some time and everyone in the Interverse believes a 5D successor is coming soon. Most people are sure the 5DII will a better AF system, since it seemed quite 'unlikely' that Canon would fit a 40D-inferior AF into their new 5-series body.

The 5DIII will not be a 'baby 1D X' with all the features at a fraction of the price. The 5DIII will not be a 'full frame 7D'. The 5DIII will be an incremental update to the 5DII - significant improvements in limited areas, minor or no changes in many others. Canon's marketeers will say otherwise, but that's the reality.

Quite a gamble though that +9MP alone will be worth the potential upgrade cost of $1500+ since 21MP isn't THAT low so people are partially satiated, although many wouldn't mind more reach but maybe they say may as well just get it in 7D2 then which will also bring the better video, even more reach and 8fps and maybe finally truly solid AF and cost less than 5D3. If they at least give it a much improved AF and 40D speed then it becomes enough of an all around to mayeb really get a wide variety of people interested.

Logged

Benpunta

Hello - I'm new here in the forum.... but been visiting the site for years

Anyway.... I've got to agree with the comments from 'neuroanatomist' .....basically Canon are ultimately a business in it to make profit pure & simple, ....we might of all complained about how bad the 5D & 5D2 focussing was (even after reading reviews)... but hey, they still sold a shed load!

I recently got to spend about 1 hour playing with the new 1DX the other day .....and chatting with the guy from Canon, who was closely guarding it.

As always (obviously)... he wasn't giving away any new possible info about future cameras (particularly my questions about the possible 5D3 !) ....but one thing he did mention, was that Canon certainly weren't going to make the same mistake they did with cannibalising sales of the 1Ds3.... when they released the 5D2.

The 1DX will be the 'Ferrari' of their line-up..... (his words) .......he also mentioned..... that Canon IS listening and evaluating all the feedback!

I suppose it's nothing we didn't already know..... but it just re-confirms the comments from 'neuroanatomist'

That the 5D3 .....will have to be substantially different this time for Canon not to not have a repeat performance, so unfortunately IMO - the autofocus will probably remain the same if not only marginally better.

I own a 5D & 5D2.... and just as much as everyone else, I would love to have autofocus that nailed it dead on every time, in low light (EV - 2), without the need to use an ST-E2 as a focus assist! ...and that also works on moving subjects - (not running sports like subjects! ...just walking towards camera in low contrast like situations would be fine). Obviously it's not all that doom & gloom, as the images it produces are amazing..... you just learn to work with it's shortcomings, and occasionally get disappointed when it misses a moment because of it.

For me & my business (commercial & weddings)... personally the 1DX is probably looking like it will be the perfect camera! ...18mp is ideal in terms of file size, I pretty much only shoot on SRAW1 anyway, unless the client really needs large files. The ISO improvement looks amazing (from what I could see) hopefully the dynamic range is too (though I'll pass judgement on both of those on the final release product & reviews) ....and the speed of the autofocus was just sublime & so natural in your hand, especially coming from the 5D2 center point re-compose method! Selecting your focus point is just ridiculously fast!!

So what's the issue....?? .....for me (and probably lots of people) - it's just the price! ...I realise it's never going to be in the ball park of 5D2 prices but if it was Â£1000 less.... I'd be pre-ordering now!

But this just makes me want to work harder and save more! ...I reckon it will come down slightly after a few months, and start to level off (as does any new camera at launch) but it's starting price (which apparently according to the - Canon Rep) ...is still liable to change before March, as economic and competition factors still play a major part in deeming what it's final price will be at launch.

5D3 - whatever it will be! ......IMO - I just can't see it being the camera for me now..... and especially after handling and knowing what the 1DX can do.... and then thinking logically about how Canon have played their cards in the past.

Neuro... -realistically, what physical/manufacturing cost savings would leaving out a reasonable auto-focus system provide? I'm thinking in terms of raw material it's next to no extra costs, and in terms of manufacturing techniques, it's nominal for them to make the extra effort

Handicapping the 5DIII AF isn't a production cost-saving measure, it's a marketing strategy to drive differentiation. As whatta correctly points out, including AFMA in the 60D would have been essentially free (there's no hardware component, and the algorithm was already done), but they chose not to do that. Fundamentally, they need to have market separation between the 1D X and the 5DIII (and between any other lines, as well), and AF performance is one way to do that - it's one that Canon has a long history of using. IMO, especially if Canon puts a >21 MP sensor in the 5DIII, they'll need to have other ways to differentiate it more strongly from the 1D X than if they use the same 18 MP sensor as the 1D X.

Think of features as a set of sliders like you see in financial/loan calculators, and set has to sum to a fixed final ranking. So, the 1-series has all the sliders pegged to the right-hand side (100%), and the xxxxD has them all pegged to the left (0%). For models in between, think of xxxD at 25%, xxD at 50%, and xD at 75%. Compare 7D to 5DII - the 7D has sensor size and MP bumped down (APS-C is not as good as FF, 18 vs. 21 MP), so the frame rate and AF sliders are bumped up, as is weather sealing. If the 5DIII has FF, higher MP, equivalent AF as 7D, 5 fps, better sealing, etc., it becomes 90%, not 75%, and that's too close to the 1D X. In other words, the better the sensor in the 5DIII, the worse (relatively) the other features. For example, a 5DIII with a 28 MP FF sensor with the ISO improvements approaching the 1D X would likely mean using the exact same AF as the 5DII, lower FPS and perhaps even reduced build quality/sealing. These trade-offs aren't necessarily determined by costs, but rather by marketing strategy.

True - Nikon doesn't differentiate the pro line from the semi-pro line with AF. Instead, they differentiate based on sensor resolution. You can get 'pro' AF short of the D3x, but then you're limited to 16 MP APS-C or 12 MP FF. If you want high MP and pro AF, you're stuck with the $8K D3x.

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

I for one am planning on getting 1DX but with a poor AF system I would not consider getting a 5D III in tandem with it whereas if it had a pro level AF system I would probably end up getting both. That is assuming it is not just a dumbed down version of the 1DX and actually has a high MP FF sensor

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned? No. Frame rate and build are others. More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc. Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price. How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

arussarts

Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:- to be a great professional landscape camera- to be a sports camera- to make large prints similar to 4â€ x 5â€ + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:- photo-journalist type work- wedding/event photographers- walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)- indie videographers- making most photos less than 16â€ x 20â€

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real â€œproâ€ landscape photographer would be using medium or large format: either 4â€ x 5â€ or 8â€ x 10â€ film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system), or a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

I respectfully disagree with much of your post. I am a "pro" land photog and a "pro" arch photog and have used everything from LF Film to LF Digital to a D3x (begrudgingly) and my preferred camera to take out is my 5d2. It's "good enough" to make the savings in cost and the savings in weight worth leaving those other behemoths in the studio.

Could it be improved? Absolutely! Most of what I shoot (architecture) requires a LF Dig Cam, but with the new 17mm TSE I could practically stop using the LF Dig. I'd certainly like to. The only thing that stops me is that my clients demand more resolution. My landscape work, demands more resolution. I want the next 5D iteration to be more than "good enough" both in ISO and MP. AF would be nice, but I can't say it's important to me.

I can't honestly see how the 5d2, or coming 5d3, ever became so valuable to wedding/sports/journalist shooters. It's just not the camera for that and never was. The 7D I can see.

MRW

Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:- to be a great professional landscape camera- to be a sports camera- to make large prints similar to 4â€ x 5â€ + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:- photo-journalist type work- wedding/event photographers- walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)- indie videographers- making most photos less than 16â€ x 20â€

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real â€œproâ€ landscape photographer would be using medium or large format: either 4â€ x 5â€ or 8â€ x 10â€ film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system), or a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

I respectfully disagree with much of your post. I am a "pro" land photog and a "pro" arch photog and have used everything from LF Film to LF Digital to a D3x (begrudgingly) and my preferred camera to take out is my 5d2. It's "good enough" to make the savings in cost and the savings in weight worth leaving those other behemoths in the studio.

Could it be improved? Absolutely! Most of what I shoot (architecture) requires a LF Dig Cam, but with the new 17mm TSE I could practically stop using the LF Dig. I'd certainly like to. The only thing that stops me is that my clients demand more resolution. My landscape work, demands more resolution. I want the next 5D iteration to be more than "good enough" both in ISO and MP. AF would be nice, but I can't say it's important to me.

I can't honestly see how the 5d2, or coming 5d3, ever became so valuable to wedding/sports/journalist shooters. It's just not the camera for that and never was. The 7D I can see.

I completely agree with you. But I am also an Interiors / Arch / Landscape Pro.I don't need a fast camera just a bit more resolution would be great. I crop to 4x5 so I always lose a bit.Maybe less noise with long exposures. ISO 25 would be a nice feature as well.

Seems counterintuitive. That aside, the thought of the AF being less than the 7D is a downer.

I wouldn't say that. As I've mentioned in a previous answer, a 5D III with around 30mp would still be LESS DENSE than the 7D at 18mp. It would take a 46.7mp FF sensor to achieve the same pixel density as the 7D (which, while it doesn't have superb ISO performance, isn't terrible until around 3200). A 30mp sensor would be 16.7mp away from that maximum. Combine that fact with the improved design and readout electronics of the 1DX style sensor, and I don't see a 30mp sensor with better noise characteristics than any current 20mp+ sensor on the market today being "impossible" or even "implausible".

I can see what you're saying, and it's true if you approach the issue from that direction, but I prefer to approach it from the other. Yes, when compared to a 7D's relative density, the theoretical 5D MkIII density is still spaced enough to give it an advantage over the 7D's ISO, but I don't think I would call that high ISO performance. I consider it higher ISO performance than the 7D. The 1DX on the other hand has (I will assume) high ISO performance. Compared to that, the theoretical 5DIII won't have as good a performance, if only because it would lose it in the MP jump.

I don't mean to nitpick and say you're wrong, because you're not. "High ISO performance" really is a relative term based on who is hearing the comment, and as a 5DII owner looking for even better performance, all I can do is expect something relative to the 1DX.

As for the AF, what I REALLY REALLY want is more of the center AF type placed elsewhere in the frame. That's it. AF groups, modes, and algorithms be damned, I just want a solid AF point I can choose in single point mode that lies much nearer the Rule of Thirds lines. If the 5DIII had 5 total points, one in the center and one for each intersection of the thirds lines, I'd be happy. It's so limiting to use my 85 f1.2 and 135 f2 because I either can't trust my outer points to focus well, or I can't trust my subject to stay in focus after using the focus-shift technique.

I really don't think that asking for better quality points elsewhere in the frame is asking for much of Canon, much less asking for pro level AF since that entails a lot more beyond what I've said. If Canon can't muster the "courage" to at the very least give a few better points outside the center nearer the corners, then they've produced a garbage camera as far as I'm concerned. These kind of statements are always taken out of context though, so let me restate that it's as far as I am concerned. This means for me, given what I have, what I want, and where I stand on my own upgrade path, a 5DIII with AF of limited quality is garbage. This is not a "I'm jumping to Nikon" statement either, because I won't. I'll stick with Canon. That doesn't mean I can't be critical of them though. I'm an investor in them through my purchases, and I have every right to call it how I see it.

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned? No. Frame rate and build are others. More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc. Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price. How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

A lot.

If people have been harping on something for 3 years, that is the first clue that they are willing to pay up for it.The 5D2 cannabalized the sales of the 1D line anyways...do you not think if Canon put a 7D-like autofocus and better sealing in the 5D2 they could have easily padded each camera $500 or more and people would have been tripping over themselves to pay it? I bet green money that if Canon had re-released the 5D2 as the 5D2s when the 7D came out and added those specs, they could have upsold the hell out of it. But alas, half the people settled for something less...and the other half still has their money in their mattress ready to buy a camera that doesn't exist (but easily could).

I'll make it easy for you Canon:Break the small form factor full frame prosumer line into 2:1) Speed Demon (12mp, High ISO, AF, FPS, Sealing, Movie)2) Megapixel Monster (with current AF, sealing)Charge $3500 for each then sit back and count all your money

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned? No. Frame rate and build are others. More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc. Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price. How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

My ideal camera would be something like an updated 7D with a 1DX sensor (AF and frame rate are critical for me), or equivalently a slightly downgraded 1DX in a smaller body. I'd definitely rather pay $4k for the specs you mentioned than $3k for what you are predicting (most likely correctly) for the 5DIII. I'm sure plenty of others would too. This would leave a nice price gap to introduce a 'cheap' $2000-$2500 FF for those who don't need the same speed, AF, and build quality.

I'd like to upgrade my 7D to a FF camera, but not sure if I can afford a 1DX and the 5DIII doesn't sound promising for indoor sports shooting.

One thing to consider is that the 7D mk2 could potentially move up in the market, if its AF and FPS are advanced further then that leaves room for a 5D mk3 to improve those areas without stepping on its toes.

Really though the market for me seems to be more suited to 2 5D sized cameras than one...